Walking through exclusion: using walking interviews to explore deaf people’s inclusion in the workplace

This is a v/blog about a longer article:Dai O’Brien (2019) Negotiating academic environments: using Lefebvre to conceptualise deaf spaces and disabling/enabling environments. Journal of Cultural Geography. DOI: 10.1080/08873631.2019.1677293

Introduction

More deaf people are gaining higher education degrees and are working in higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world now than ever before. Much previous research has focused on the need for sign language interpreters or other language access requirements. However, little research has been conducted on how deaf people’s physical environment impacts on their experience of work. This post outlines some research conducted with deaf academics in the UK, exploring their experience of the physical environment.

It is important to note that this research is not only relevant to academics, but also to any deaf person who is working in a largely hearing institution. My research was conducted using walking interviews, and results are split into three main sections: accessibility of existing institutional spaces, problems caused by the design of the institution, and producing deaf spaces. In the following, I will look at each of these in turn.

Walking interviews

Interviews with deaf people should make use
of the visual modality of sign, but also explore deaf people’s visual
experience of the world. Walking interviews are a perfect example of a method
that does this. These interviews were conducted while moving through the HEI in
which the research participant worked, with them acting as a guide showing me
the places they frequented, the places they avoided, explaining how they felt
about different areas in their HEI and recounting any particular anecdotes
connected to a specific location.

To record these interviews, I used a small,
handheld camcorder held close to my chest so that I could move and frame shots
without having to look at the screen of the camcorder. This was advantageous
because it meant that I could maintain eye contact with the research
participant while asking questions and still be able to pan around to capture
our surroundings without breaking the flow of the interview. I considered using
Go Pros strapped on my chest, but thought that the risk of accidentally
blocking the shot was too high. A hand-held camera gave me the advantage of
being unobtrusive but also afforded the option of moving independently of my
body when needed.

Data recorded in this way was extremely
rich. Not only was the interview data recorded in BSL, but the environment in
which the interviews took place was also recorded on tape. How we moved through
space was captured, giving an important insight into how we adapted our
movement and signing to different physical environments. The particular rooms
or places which triggered emotional responses or particular memories were also
captured on the video, which gave me much deeper understanding of the
participant’s narratives when I watched them back. Unfortunately, I was not
able to record my questions to the participants, but I requested that they
repeat my question back to me at the start of their reply. While this
interrupted the flow of the interaction somewhat, it was the best way I could
think of to record my questions.

Accessibility of institutional spaces

Many of the spaces in which deaf academics
worked were not optimal from the point of view of accessibility. In many cases
the video shows us walking down corridors one behind the other, not
communicating, because there was no room to walk side by side and sign at the
same time. In some cases when we attempted this, one or both of us had to
intervene to prevent the other from walking into some obstacle. More often when
inside we had to find a comfortable space out of the way, then stop and chat.
Conversations outside were much less restricted by the space available, so it
was clear that the buildings in which these deaf people worked isolated them on
this level by preventing them from communicating in particular parts of the
building.

Several participants pointed out that they
worked in offices or teaching rooms in which there were no flashing lights for
fire alarms or doorbells. Some had agitated for the provision of these safety
features for several years before they were provided. A sense of dark humour
prevailed when talking about this, with participants questioning the value
their HEI placed on their lives, and joking that they could burn to death in
work without knowing it.

Design of the institution

Many participants felt that the actual
design of the buildings in which they worked created barriers for their
involvement in the workplace. One example was the lack of windows in office
doors. Without a window, a closed door becomes an impermeable barrier to deaf
people, because there is no way of knowing if someone is behind the door or
not. This not only prevented deaf people from knowing what was going on outside
their own offices, but also prevented them from feeling they could visit
colleagues as they were never sure if they were in or not.

Institutional design didn’t just cover physical
places and buildings, but also the expected behaviours of individuals within
the space. Deaf participants reported that they weren’t sure of the etiquette
required in different contexts in the university, such as who was allowed in
the staff room, or what hearing colleagues felt about noisy interruptions. This
caused them to feel some insecurity in their sense of belonging in the
workplace.

Producing deaf spaces

All of the research participants were able
to show me or tell me how they were able to make changes, small or large, to
their office environment to mark out deaf space. Some of these were very
obvious, such as having a Sign Union flag in their office, or having posters,
white gloves and other signs of their political and cultural values on display.
Others were less obvious, such as setting up rooms to have clear lines of sight
and sufficient room for signed discourse, appropriate backdrops for recording
signed videos, and moving furniture around to ensure they did not have their
backs to the door.

They also talked about how they were able
to subvert the expectations of the HEI about academic/pedagogic behaviour in
order to mark out deaf space. This not only included moving furniture around in
teaching rooms to make them more visually oriented, but also purposefully using
sign in public areas around the campus and putting research posters of their
work up in public spaces to ensure that they were visible to the university at
large.

All of these changes, small and large,
added up to producing identifiable deaf spaces which made the participants feel
more ‘at home’ and that they belonged in their HEI.

Conclusion

Firstly, video recorded walking interviews
were a huge advantage in this project. While there are some concerns about for
example, confidentiality when using this method, with careful use it can result
in extremely rich data.

Deaf academics felt that they were excluded from full inclusion in their workplace in several ways through their physical environment. While this has received little attention in the past, this paper shows that the physical environment of the workplace can have a significant impact on the feeling of belonging or otherwise of employees.

Dai O’Brien is a Senior Lecturer in BSL and Deaf Studies in York St John University, York. He is interested in using creative, visual research methods to explore deaf people’s experiences of space and place. When not working, he enjoys running and yoga. He’s on Twitter as @DrDaiJestive